smalls1129 wrote:Lead, my only problem with your argument is that it hinges (the Polls at least) on the starting position of each team. If Alabama had started out #20 that one loss would have hurt them bad. But because they were perceived to be the best at the beginning of the season, before even playing one game, it did not. Again, you can talk all you want about how clearly it should be to anyone that they are the two best, but I can't get past the fact that they shared 6 opponents to make them the clear best. It does not seem to matter to anyone but me, and I can't even quite say why it matters so much, but I can't stomach the thought that it is just accepted the two best in the country proved it by beating the same 6 teams. I know that their out of conference opponents matter...but really aren't we saying that all the other conferences are weak as shit and that's why the don't deserve to be in the game. It just feels like a circular argument that is just serving a self fulfilling prophecy.

They didn't start at number 20 because of the previous season, and the big time talent on the roster.

Should they have started at number 20 and you watched NCAA division 1 football, If you didn't have them at one or 2 after a couple weeks, well, you wouldn't know football if one spiraled into your temple.

Again, damned near EVERYONE, including every rating poll, hell, including most people arguing with me have LSU and Alabama as CLEARLY the two best teams in the country. I can't say there's been an argument otherwise.

So, the argument isn't who the two best teams in the country are, it seems to be why the two best teams in the country should not play.

I think it makes logical sense that the two best teams play. That seems both just and fair to me. But if you think otherwise that's fine, but it is what it is, you are arguing against the two best teams playing.

We all agree the system is flawed, but with what we have in front of us, I don't see a fairer solution.

Lastly Smalls, the "other conferences are weak as shit" argument, well, I'm not shouting that from the mountaintops. It matters, but more importantly, THOSE TEAMS FROM THE WEAK CONFERENCES HAD THEIR SHOT. Your argument infers that OK State, Boise or Stanford are sitting there undefeated, and I want Alabama over them based on what I think. For the record, if one of them ran the table they should be in, and the "Alabama had its shot" argument is valid. Once they all lost the "Alabama had it's shot" argument doesn't work, cause all those others had there shots to - against much easier teams to beat, and they blew it.

Fair enough....but just to go back to their starting position, last year shouldn't mean shit. The numbers of players returning (admittedly I don't know) should factor but how a team finishes is no guarantee how the team will perform the next year. And the teams from the other conferences did not have their shot as you say. They played the schedule dealt to them and most of the top teams finished the same as Alabama, with one loss. And the whole point of actually playing a game on the field is because NO ONE knows who the better team is on any given day. For Christ sake with how obstinate you are being on this why even play the rest of the fucking season. LSU has already proven they are the best. And they have proven that through your own damn logic, the beat the other contender on their own field. It's over, everything else is just a sham.

"Strangers passing in the street, by chances two separate glances meet and I am you and what I see his me."

Not a big fan of the BCS, mainly because I am jaded and a cynic and I just know the entire mess is all about the $$$$, BUT1. Historically, they have done a very good job of matching up 1 vs. 22. This abortion of a system is better than the train wreck of a system we used to have3. Any tOSU fan arguing against the BCS has a really really really short memory

BCS JeopardyAnswer - The Ohio State UniversityQuestion - Which team has the most BCS appearances since the concept originated?

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

mattvan1 wrote:Not a big fan of the BCS, mainly because I am jaded and a cynic and I just know the entire mess is all about the $$$$, BUT1. Historically, they have done a very good job of matching up 1 vs. 22. This abortion of a system is better than the train wreck of a system we used to have3. Any tOSU fan arguing against the BCS has a really really really short memory

BCS JeopardyAnswer - The Ohio State UniversityQuestion - Which team has the most BCS appearances since the concept originated?

So because my team has got there I should support it?

The system is shit. I don't care how many times OSU has been invited to play in the Citibank American Express Taco Bell Rose Fiesta Bowl Of Sugar.

I don't want to back to the old system....... I want fucking playoffs.

smalls1129 wrote:Fair enough....but just to go back to their starting position, last year shouldn't mean shit. The numbers of players returning (admittedly I don't know) should factor but how a team finishes is no guarantee how the team will perform the next year. And the teams from the other conferences did not have their shot as you say. They played the schedule dealt to them and most of the top teams finished the same as Alabama, with one loss. And the whole point of actually playing a game on the field is because NO ONE knows who the better team is on any given day. For Christ sake with how obstinate you are being on this why even play the rest of the fucking season. LSU has already proven they are the best. And they have proven that through your own damn logic, the beat the other contender on their own field. It's over, everything else is just a sham.

Last year matters cause you can see who is coming back.

It's not a clean slate. And if it were, and everyone was even ranked before week one, it woulda taken 10 seconds for anyone with a pulse to move them to one or two when the rankings began.

And all those teams DID have there shot. Okla had their shot against Iowa State. Boise on the blue turf against TCU, and so on. What's the better "shot" having to beat number one, or having to beat a team your favored by a couple touchdowns over? And they played those games "on the field" and they lost.

And, on being obstinant - well, I suppose you could call it that, I'm just unable to come off my position that the two best teams should play. Again, if Okla State is undefeated, and I'm keeping the same argument - then I would see both sides, whether I still think Alabama is two or not. I just do not think the team from the best conference in the country, that lost to number one, is behind a team that lost to the Iowa State Cyclones.

Your last point is valid, it pretty much is a sham, and LSU would have an argument no matter what happens in the NCG, no matter who they faced. But again, I'm not arguing the ill logic of the BCS, and I'm not arguing the result of the NCG.

But just because the things a sham doesn't mean we should throw someone in that game over someone who is most deserving.

Again for the most part I agree. But Alabama and LSU only played 4 non mutual teams. 6 teams each played and then the one head to head. So basically those 4 games are enough, or the SEC is just God and all others need not apply. That would be my main problem no matter the conference. Cause with how bad Alabama is on offense, theres no guarantee they win a shootout in the Big XII should their D have an off night.

"Strangers passing in the street, by chances two separate glances meet and I am you and what I see his me."

smalls1129 wrote:Again for the most part I agree. But Alabama and LSU only played 4 non mutual teams. 6 teams each played and then the one head to head. So basically those 4 games are enough, or the SEC is just God and all others need not apply. That would be my main problem no matter the conference. Cause with how bad Alabama is on offense, theres no guarantee they win a shootout in the Big XII should their D have an off night.

Look, we're going around in circles here, but the difference in conference and schedule doesn't apply here. It would only apply if Okla State, Stanford or a Boise ran the table and Alabama got in ahead of them. As it stands now, the schedule argument is down to the loss, cause without a loss I would put the undefeated team in. With this being the case I can't see how anyone would put a team that lost to Iowa State in over a team that lost to LSU.

So I'm not sure why you infer that I'm an Alabama honk cause they are from the mighty SEC. Of the one loss teams, from any conference, they lost to the best team BY FAR.

That's it.

Those teams from the weaker conferences were not at a disadvantage here. They had a chance to knock off easier teams, and they failed.

Anyways, I'm throwin' in the towel. 99% of us want playoffs, save guys like Skip Bayless who are just looking for a talk show topic. I've probably wasted too much time on this as it is.

Playoffs sounds great and logical but damn I just cannot get back to the way most of us just don't give much of a shit about college basketball these days.

Hell I don't remember having nearly this many marquee Out-of-conference matchups, and as cool as it sounds, I just don't watch. Buckeyes maybe, but Kansas playing Kentucky doesn't do much for me right now. Football is completely different because I feel like there is a 12-game playoff going on. If LSU is playing Auburn in week 6, both undefeated and top 5, and OSU is right there, I am pinned to that game like no other. Not only that I want to know what Texas, USC, Okie, Bama, and USC are doing that day. On days when my wife isn't paying attention my ass is parked on the couch damn near the entire day when OSU is in the hunt. If OSU is out of the hunt I sneak off and do some yard work for a couple of hours, outside of the OSU window.

As much as I love the playoff concept am I going to care about week 1 games like I do today? This year's LSU-Bama game might be meaningless. Moreover what good does it do, if we go all corporate US and make the playoffs some affirmative-action hunt where the Big East gets two, the ACC gets two, etc. etc. I don't want to see cinderella Pittsburgh or Cincy going for the upset in week one.

If it were the best 16 fine. I'll take Georgia, LSU, Bama, Arky, and So. Carolina from the SEC. Wisky, MSU, Okie St. Oklahoma, Oregon, Stanford, Boise st., and either Va. Tech or Clemson, but I guess we'd be stuck with both. After that? Maybe houston but do we have to Louisville or Uconn (not this year of course)

Quick ?, for anyone. IIRC isn't the BCS set up so only 2 teams at most per conference can make BCS games?

If true, what about this:

Georgia beats LSU (b/c they have a better mascot and uni's, <---- for bow), so Georgia moves up to 4 or 5 probably, and gets automatic BCS birth, Sugar Bowl. LSU drops to what, 2 or 3 at most right? Bama then goes from 2nd to 1st? But how can they put LSU below Bama due to that whole they played the game already and LSU won. Bama in above scenario goes to NCG. Leaving LSU, a 3 at worst (right?), out of a BCS bowl game, even though they beat Bama.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:Quick ?, for anyone. IIRC isn't the BCS set up so only 2 teams at most per conference can make BCS games?

If true, what about this:

Georgia beats LSU (b/c they have a better mascot and uni's, <---- for bow), so Georgia moves up to 4 or 5 probably, and gets automatic BCS birth, Sugar Bowl. LSU drops to what, 2 or 3 at most right? Bama then goes from 2nd to 1st? But how can they put LSU below Bama due to that whole they played the game already and LSU won. Bama in above scenario goes to NCG. Leaving LSU, a 3 at worst (right?), out of a BCS bowl game, even though they beat Bama.

Heard this being discussed on a radio show awhile back, it was my understanding that if the NCG has presidence. In other words they'll match up LSU and Bama, leaving Georgia SOL.

Haven't looked into it any further, but considering how far ahead those two are - that the NCG is pretty much a foregone conclusion, I would assume the concrete details are out there somewhere.

bac5665 wrote:The problem this year is that LSU is already the National Champs. They won that title the second they beat Alabama. It's over, go home, nothing to see.

But God damn it, there's this exhibition game LSU has to play as some formality and they have to play someone. It cannot be Alabama because they already lost. We KNOW that LSU is better than Alabama AND we know that a rematch makes for a pretty boring exhibition game, so what's the point?

If Alabama plays against LSU, the BCS has failed catastrophically. Why play the games if you can just get a second chance if the media can just wish you back into the championship picture?

Let me put it this way. The purpose of the National Championship Game is NOT to play #1 against #2. It is to find out who #1 is. Usually, the best way to figure that out is to have #1 and #2 play. But this year, we've already done that. We already have that information. And #1 beat #2 AT #2'S HOME FIELD. So, in this weird year, it makes more sense to play #1 against #3, just to check, to make sure that #1 is really #1.

That or cancel the thing and hand LSU the trophy now. Which I'm actually all for because everyone here who's saying that OSU doesn't deserve a shot either is right to. There is no deserving sacrificial lamb for LSU. None. I really think that if LSU plays and loses to any team in the country in the NC game, that LSU is still the #1 team in the country. They proved that with their schedule. But if they have to play someone, make it #3, because LSU has earned the right to not have to play Alabama again.

99% This.

You wrote much better what I was trying to say.

Again, the 1% of me says you have to play your bowl and coronate. Else Turner Gill and Mike Rozier, Vinny and Gino have jewelry from their senior seasons. It does happen.

No more than two teams from a conference may be selected, regardless of whether they are automatic qualifiers or at-large selections, unless two non-champions from the same conference are ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in the final BCS Standings.

The BCS, while not perfect, is 100X better than watching the old system in which New Year's day was generally flooded with poor match ups. How quickly we forget. Remember the days when the #1 team in the country would play #24 and #2 would play #17 and then you would spend the day rooting for both to tie so that #3 could win the AP national championship? It was terrible. At least this way you get more compelling football and if you happen to get a true national champ, well then bonus!

Playoffs would be better, but like we say around these boards this time every year, DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH.

That is all I have to say about this topic (for the 300th time).

Coming from a Wolverine, we're the football equivalent of a formerly abused wife of a meth addict who just remarried the safe nice guy. We're just glad we have someone who's aware that it's a rivalry and that tackling on defense is integral. Baby steps.

Imagine being LSU and you played arguably the most difficult schedule in the country this season, win your conference division, win your conference title game and then lose the "BCS title game" to a team you beat the first time. How can you not think you should be co-champs at the very least? Am I missing something? I would think the media honks would be on this as well or maybe not.

"It's all about winning for me, and I think the Cavs are committed to doing that," he said. "But at the same time I've given myself options to this point, and like I said before, me and my team, we have a game plan that we're going to execute, and we'll see what we get."

I do understand the premise behind the championship game. I realize the Giants lost to Patriots in regular season and vanquished the Hoodie in the Bowl. I guess I don't think of the BCS title game as a post-season contest.

"It's all about winning for me, and I think the Cavs are committed to doing that," he said. "But at the same time I've given myself options to this point, and like I said before, me and my team, we have a game plan that we're going to execute, and we'll see what we get."

I do understand the premise behind the championship game. I realize the Giants lost to Patriots in regular season and vanquished the Hoodie in the Bowl. I guess I don't think of the BCS title game as a post-season contest.

mattvan1 wrote:Not a big fan of the BCS, mainly because I am jaded and a cynic and I just know the entire mess is all about the $$$$, BUT1. Historically, they have done a very good job of matching up 1 vs. 22. This abortion of a system is better than the train wreck of a system we used to have3. Any tOSU fan arguing against the BCS has a really really really short memory

BCS JeopardyAnswer - The Ohio State UniversityQuestion - Which team has the most BCS appearances since the concept originated?

So because my team has got there I should support it?

The system is shit. I don't care how many times OSU has been invited to play in the Citibank American Express Taco Bell Rose Fiesta Bowl Of Sugar.

I don't want to back to the old system....... I want fucking playoffs.

You should do whatever you want - probably order a pizza and drink a Hefeweizen.

All I am saying is that the BCS has been very very good to the Big10 and tOSU. Way better than most people realize, I would bet.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

I do understand the premise behind the championship game. I realize the Giants lost to Patriots in regular season and vanquished the Hoodie in the Bowl. I guess I don't think of the BCS title game as a post-season contest.

Well, maybe you should. Because it is.

I know, I know, I know.

"It's all about winning for me, and I think the Cavs are committed to doing that," he said. "But at the same time I've given myself options to this point, and like I said before, me and my team, we have a game plan that we're going to execute, and we'll see what we get."

I do understand the premise behind the championship game. I realize the Giants lost to Patriots in regular season and vanquished the Hoodie in the Bowl. I guess I don't think of the BCS title game as a post-season contest.

Well, maybe you should. Because it is.

Only if you don't view the whole bowl system as complete fucking joke.

Otherwise, it's an exhibition game with a false crown.

As far as I'm concerned, the season ends with the only true postseason games, the conference championship games, giving us multiple champions. Then some people come along, toss together a bunch of teams willy-nilly (a month after their last game, no less) depending on voting and public perception and proclaim it a "national championship".

It's crap. Saying it's better than what used to be doesn't make it not crap.

If you the viewing public want to buy into it as a valid postseason, enjoy. I view the bowl season as a slew of exhibition games that give me a chance to enter bowl pools and watch potential draft picks.

I almost think the NCAA loves the controversy their crap system generates because they falsely believe that any press is good press.

I kind of liken being against the BCS in the way that most Indians fan do not like the lack of a salary cap and revenue sharing.

We know it's bullshit, but when they're winning you seem to tune it out.

They've been good to the bucks,Yes. They've been good to BIG, Yes. But the system is terrible. No ones questioning it. But if you look at it from a neutral standpoint, it's messed up.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

I do understand the premise behind the championship game. I realize the Giants lost to Patriots in regular season and vanquished the Hoodie in the Bowl. I guess I don't think of the BCS title game as a post-season contest.

Well, maybe you should. Because it is.

Only if you don't view the whole bowl system as complete fucking joke.

Otherwise, it's an exhibition game with a false crown.

As far as I'm concerned, the season ends with the only true postseason games, the conference championship games, giving us multiple champions. Then some people come along, toss together a bunch of teams willy-nilly (a month after their last game, no less) depending on voting and public perception and proclaim it a "national championship".

It's crap. Saying it's better than what used to be doesn't make it not crap.

If you the viewing public want to buy into it as a valid postseason, enjoy. I view the bowl season as a slew of exhibition games that give me a chance to enter bowl pools and watch potential draft picks.

I almost think the NCAA loves the controversy their crap system generates because they falsely believe that any press is good press.

Which is a fine and completely acceptable position for an individual.

Doesn't change a thing in 5 years when someone says who won the national championship for 2011 and that answer will be the winner of the BCS Championship Game.

I kind of liken being against the BCS in the way that most Indians fan do not like the lack of a salary cap and revenue sharing.

We know it's bullshit, but when they're winning you seem to tune it out.

They've been good to the bucks,Yes. They've been good to BIG, Yes. But the system is terrible. No ones questioning it. But if you look at it from a neutral standpoint, it's messed up.

Very valid - multiple POV's indeed. And from the reference point of a "give me the best matchup" or "give me the fairest games" football fan, the system probably does suck. All I'm trying to point out is the flipside of a system which seems to completely suck may actually not be THAT bad from a bigger picture POV, especially looking at exposure, $$$, recruiting, prestige for tOSU and the conference.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

mattvan1 wrote:Very valid - multiple POV's indeed. And from the reference point of a "give me the best matchup" or "give me the fairest games" football fan, the system probably does suck. All I'm trying to point out is the flipside of a system which seems to completely suck may actually not be THAT bad from a bigger picture POV, especially looking at exposure, $$$, recruiting, prestige for tOSU and the conference.

From the POV of a fan of a mid-major program, it's terrible as well.

Kent, Fresno St, Houston, etc, really get fucked over money-wise due to the system in place, while TOSU and others make millions off of it.

It's almost as if there's a caste system in college football today.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

bac5665 wrote:The problem this year is that LSU is already the National Champs. They won that title the second they beat Alabama. It's over, go home, nothing to see.

But God damn it, there's this exhibition game LSU has to play as some formality and they have to play someone. It cannot be Alabama because they already lost. We KNOW that LSU is better than Alabama AND we know that a rematch makes for a pretty boring exhibition game, so what's the point?

If Alabama plays against LSU, the BCS has failed catastrophically. Why play the games if you can just get a second chance if the media can just wish you back into the championship picture?

Let me put it this way. The purpose of the National Championship Game is NOT to play #1 against #2. It is to find out who #1 is. Usually, the best way to figure that out is to have #1 and #2 play. But this year, we've already done that. We already have that information. And #1 beat #2 AT #2'S HOME FIELD. So, in this weird year, it makes more sense to play #1 against #3, just to check, to make sure that #1 is really #1.

That or cancel the thing and hand LSU the trophy now. Which I'm actually all for because everyone here who's saying that OSU doesn't deserve a shot either is right to. There is no deserving sacrificial lamb for LSU. None. I really think that if LSU plays and loses to any team in the country in the NC game, that LSU is still the #1 team in the country. They proved that with their schedule. But if they have to play someone, make it #3, because LSU has earned the right to not have to play Alabama again.

I do understand the premise behind the championship game. I realize the Giants lost to Patriots in regular season and vanquished the Hoodie in the Bowl. I guess I don't think of the BCS title game as a post-season contest.

Well, maybe you should. Because it is.

Only if you don't view the whole bowl system as complete fucking joke.

Otherwise, it's an exhibition game with a false crown.

As far as I'm concerned, the season ends with the only true postseason games, the conference championship games, giving us multiple champions. Then some people come along, toss together a bunch of teams willy-nilly (a month after their last game, no less) depending on voting and public perception and proclaim it a "national championship".

It's crap. Saying it's better than what used to be doesn't make it not crap.

If you the viewing public want to buy into it as a valid postseason, enjoy. I view the bowl season as a slew of exhibition games that give me a chance to enter bowl pools and watch potential draft picks.

I almost think the NCAA loves the controversy their crap system generates because they falsely believe that any press is good press.

Which is a fine and completely acceptable position for an individual.

Doesn't change a thing in 5 years when someone says who won the national championship for 2011 and that answer will be the winner of the BCS Championship Game.

According to the rules in place, this is technically true.

Just like it is technically true that Michigan won the 2010 OSU-Michigan game.

We all know in reality that it's a farce, but that won't stop them from printing the record books thusly.

mattvan1 wrote:Very valid - multiple POV's indeed. And from the reference point of a "give me the best matchup" or "give me the fairest games" football fan, the system probably does suck. All I'm trying to point out is the flipside of a system which seems to completely suck may actually not be THAT bad from a bigger picture POV, especially looking at exposure, $$$, recruiting, prestige for tOSU and the conference.

From the POV of a fan of a mid-major program, it's terrible as well.

Kent, Fresno St, Houston, etc, really get fucked over money-wise due to the system in place, while TOSU and others make millions off of it.

It's almost as if there's a caste system in college football today.

Which is why the NCAA presidenial leadership needs to take the bull by the balls on this and stop kow towing to the boostesr on their BoT's.

The truely big boys need to suceed from the union become the new BCS. Kill the conferences as we know/knew them. Take the legit big boys who generate $ x income independant of shared revenue ncome and draw upwards of a legitimate average of > 50K butts in seats and have them from a true D I of maybe 30 - 50 universities.

Let them do whatever the hell they want sort of players salaries (but allow player likeness income to individuals) and so long as FB is truely self-sustaining from the univerities operating and capital budget.

Take the rest of the MAC's, CUSA's, Mountain West's, most of the Big East and create a new FCS division. Have 2 FCS divisions before D 2 starts.

Kill the conference and bowl comittees as we know them. As NCAA presidents, just axe them. If the bowls want to play in the post season playoff structure, it will be under NCAA rules and not vice versa. Just have the big boys make their own schedules, allow a max of 2 games / year vs FCS teams, negotiate TV as a collective group and institute a 16 game post season playoff.

The big boys have to revenue share a percentage of that TV and licensing revenue with the new FCS schools to incent them to leave the party/farce. Let's face it, that's all the Kent's and Miamis and UC Davis care about is revenue.

pup wrote:Well, I just checked the NCAA site and it has the results of that game being 37-7 Ohio State.

I imagine that will be changed once the NCAA finalizes the sanctions/penalties to read Michigan - Forfeit. Assuming they ever get around to that.

It's kind of nit-picking, but the official (OSU) position isn't that the 2010 games were "forfeited", but rather that they were "vacated". The difference is that instead of the records showing an 0-13 season, it pretends the season didn't happen at all.

Instead of winning seven out of the last eight against Michigan, they now say we have won six out of the last seven (not six out of the last eight)

I have no idea how the official UM record books treat this, but I'm betting they won't show 2010 as a "win" for their program, in either the keeping of records of streaks, or the record of the all-time series between the two schools, etc

2010 didn't happen. Play along.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

pup wrote:Well, I just checked the NCAA site and it has the results of that game being 37-7 Ohio State.

I imagine that will be changed once the NCAA finalizes the sanctions/penalties to read Michigan - Forfeit. Assuming they ever get around to that.

It's kind of nit-picking, but the official (OSU) position isn't that the 2010 games were "forfeited", but rather that they were "vacated". The difference is that instead of the records showing an 0-13 season, it pretends the season didn't happen at all.

Instead of winning seven out of the last eight against Michigan, they now say we have won six out of the last seven (not six out of the last eight)

I have no idea how the official UM record books treat this, but I'm betting they won't show 2010 as a "win" for their program, in either the keeping of records of streaks, or the record of the all-time series between the two schools, etc

mattvan1 wrote:Very valid - multiple POV's indeed. And from the reference point of a "give me the best matchup" or "give me the fairest games" football fan, the system probably does suck. All I'm trying to point out is the flipside of a system which seems to completely suck may actually not be THAT bad from a bigger picture POV, especially looking at exposure, $$$, recruiting, prestige for tOSU and the conference.

From the POV of a fan of a mid-major program, it's terrible as well.

Kent, Fresno St, Houston, etc, really get fucked over money-wise due to the system in place, while TOSU and others make millions off of it.

It's almost as if there's a caste system in college football today.

Which is why the NCAA presidenial leadership needs to take the bull by the balls on this and stop kow towing to the boostesr on their BoT's.

The truely big boys need to suceed from the union become the new BCS. Kill the conferences as we know/knew them. Take the legit big boys who generate $ x income independant of shared revenue ncome and draw upwards of a legitimate average of > 50K butts in seats and have them from a true D I of maybe 30 - 50 universities.

Let them do whatever the hell they want sort of players salaries (but allow player likeness income to individuals) and so long as FB is truely self-sustaining from the univerities operating and capital budget.

Take the rest of the MAC's, CUSA's, Mountain West's, most of the Big East and create a new FCS division. Have 2 FCS divisions before D 2 starts.

Kill the conference and bowl comittees as we know them. As NCAA presidents, just axe them. If the bowls want to play in the post season playoff structure, it will be under NCAA rules and not vice versa. Just have the big boys make their own schedules, allow a max of 2 games / year vs FCS teams, negotiate TV as a collective group and institute a 16 game post season playoff.

The big boys have to revenue share a percentage of that TV and licensing revenue with the new FCS schools to incent them to leave the party/farce. Let's face it, that's all the Kent's and Miamis and UC Davis care about is revenue.

No more BS conferences, playoffs and stop the sham.

This.

I never want to see OSU play Akron again. Nor any other NC competitive school. We need the top 30 or so schools to play a league like every other major sport.

But while we're dreaming, I'd like Pujols to sign with the Indians an 8 year deal for $10 bucks a year.

The plan I had in mind had 6-16 team conferences (ACC, B1G, SEC, SWC, PAC, and CUSA). Pretty much rewarding those that have lived up to the hype of being a mid-major. Demote the MAC and the leftovers back to FCS until they prove they can play the Big Boys.

Postseason consists of 6 Conf. Champs at Neutral Sites, and then 4 new years games, consisting of 5 rotating classic bowl games (Fiesta, Sugar, Cotton, Rose, Orange). Typical, Classic Matchup (IE, SWC @ Cotton, SEC @ Sugar Bowl, B1G and PAC @ Rose). Winners of those games go to a final four type format at a rotating one of those sites.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

My proposal is four 16 team conferences, two 8 team divisions each. Teams play everyone in their division once (7 games), 2 rotating games against teams from the other division in their conference, 2 games against teams from the other 3 major conferences, 1 game against FCS1 teams (more on that in a sec).

That's 64 teams, and that's all that Div. 1 is comprised of.

The other 56 Div. 1 teams can move down to FCS1, which has it's own playoffs etc. What is now the FCS becomes FCS2, then Div. 2, etc.

Division winners play in conference championships, like they do now. Conference champs play in Playoff Bowl #1 (seeded according to ranking/record/whatever). Playoff Bowl winners play in an actual Championship Game that you have to win essentially 2 playoff games to get in.

Any teams not in the Playoffs still get to go to their crappy Bowls if invited.

Semi-Finals and Finals are at the Sugar Bowl. The "NIT of CFB" would exist too.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

Not having a Big 12 title game for Ok. State to play in is also hurtful to them. Wonder what BCS standings would look like if the Pokes won the Bedlam game and then the Big 12 title game?

"It's all about winning for me, and I think the Cavs are committed to doing that," he said. "But at the same time I've given myself options to this point, and like I said before, me and my team, we have a game plan that we're going to execute, and we'll see what we get."